Posted on 05/22/2004 4:54:17 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Federal agents working undercover at gun shows in Nevada the past year have arrested 14 suspects on a variety of firearms charges that include illegally possessing machine guns and explosives, agents said Friday.
The FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and local law enforcement agencies joined to apprehend the 13 men and one woman in five Western states - Nevada, California, Utah, Idaho and Washington - as part of "Operation Over the Line."
Nine of the suspects were arrested after search warrants were served Friday, and five others already were in custody as part of the investigation, said Daniel Bogden, U.S. attorney for Nevada.
They've been indicted by federal grand juries in Nevada and Idaho. The indictments, some dating to February, were unsealed Friday.
"Undercover ATF agents purchased nearly 40 firearms using different Reno gun shows as the hub of activity," said John Torres, ATF special agent in charge of the San Francisco office.
"We also seized explosives at one residence in Reno today," including 20 blasting caps and 20 feet of detonating cord, he said.
The agents purchased guns over the past year at about 10 gun shows, one in Las Vegas and the rest in Reno, including large events held at the Reno Hilton hotel-casino and the Reno-Sparks convention center, authorities said. The weapons include eight machine guns, 10 hand guns and 15 long guns, Torres said.
Items seized include a bulletproof vest, assault rifles and semiautomatic pistols - specifically a Korean-made AK47 machine gun, a .45-caliber submachine gun, an AK47 semiautomatic assault pistol, a Glock 9 mm pistol, a Glock .40-caliber pistol and a Baretta semiautomatic pistol.
"We want to show that you can't use gun shows as a vehicle to conduct illegal firearm sales," Torres said.
The operation was "part of a nationwide commitment to reduce the number of illegal guns in possession out there," Bogden said.
Assistant Washoe County Sheriff Jim Lopey said the operation was a huge success.
"We got a lot of weapons off the street," he said.
Torres and Bogden said each of the suspects appeared to have been acting independently and none is known to be involved in terrorism or belong to a gang.
"But we want to be sure they do not get into the hands of gang members," he said.
The indictments show undercover buys were made at the "Las Vegas Gun Show" on Jan. 17 and at various sessions of the "Big Reno Gun Show" on April 23 and last year on Aug. 16 and Nov. 15.
"We are not targeting gun shows. We're targeting people who use gun shows as a conduit to traffic illegally in firearms," Torres said.
A message left at the number for the Big Reno Gun Show was not immediately returned. Another listed contact, Donald Shiffer of Carson City, was out of town and not immediately available for comment, said a woman who answered the telephone and identified herself as his daughter.
Nina Delgadillo, senior special agent and spokeswoman for the ATF field office in Sacramento, emphasized that most gun show dealers follow the law.
"This is a minority of people who are using gun shows to conduct illegal activities," she said.
"Unfortunately you have this other kind of people mixed in here," added Thomas Cannon, ATF special agent in charge of the Reno office.
Several of the people charged were felons or were covered by domestic violence restraining orders and were prohibited from possessing firearms, Bogden said.
Only licensed dealers can sell firearms at gun shows and they can sell directly to people only from within the same state. Sales to out-of-state buyers must include a licensed dealer from their home state.
Most of the charges in the indictments are punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, although several carry maximum sentences of 10 years in prison, including possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm by a felon, Bogden said.
See 51
States have the authority to make slaves out of persons convicted of major crimes (per Amendment XIII). As such, I see nothing unconstitutional about a state imposing any sort of restriction on a convicted felon, as part of the prescribed sentence.
At the federal level, the only type of legislation I can see as being legitimate would provide that a person who was forbidden in any state from purchasing or possessing firearms as a result of being convicted of certain types of crimes within that state may not purchase or possess firearms in any other state [such legislation authorized under the full faith and credit clause].
It was the red queen... Fer sure...
Allow me a question, if you will. Do the rights of the individual trump the will of the majority, in your opinion?
Can President Bush afford to lose 5% of his base?
If you've served your time, are elgible to vote and have not been adjudicated a violent offender, mentally incompetent or an addict I think you have the right to purchase and own firearms. Regards
This is simply silly. Your right to bear arms ends at my property line. There are no absolute rights. Free speech ends in the crowded movie house. There are reasonable public safety concerns that outweigh individual rights. And while I agree that current laws are more restrictive than necessary, it does not help the cause of repealing them by stating that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
When you see someone arrested for a non-violent "gun crime", i.e. merely possesion of a "prohibited weapon", what you are seeing is a crime being commited by an out of control illegitimate government.
Really? A "prohibited weapon" extends to lots of things. Would you really want Timothy McVeigh to be able to drive his U-Haul of fertilizer bomb material into your neighborhood? Until he detonated it, he was simply driving a U-Haul with a "prohibited weapon." It does not help the cause by arguing that indiviudals have an unlimited right to put others in an unreasonable amount of danger. It's a common law principle that has been around since Magna Carter.
I support more freedoms, such as the freedom of people to decide what kind of a society they are going to live in, all within Constitutional bounds.
CJ, those bounds on our RKBA's were set long ago by our 2nd amendment, which all of our states must honor as the 'law of the land'.
Ken H asked you:
"Let's say the people of Chicago, via the city council, decide they want their city free of guns. Should Chicago be permitted to ban its residents from owning and keeping guns in their homes?"
66 Ken H
Unless the Illinois Constitution says otherwise, then yes.
72
CJ, this answer contradicts your comment above that you - "support more freedoms, -- all within Constitutional bounds", -- seeing that the state of Illinois must also obey our 14th & 10th amendments prohibitions on its powers.
Really CJ, -- you don't need to be a lawyer to understand these concepts. - A little common sense will suffice.
shhhhhhhhhhhh
No salvation in that. I know guys who have been convicted of DUI on a bicycle, a mule, and a horse. Not fair, in my opinion. Neither the mule nor the horse were drunk and they were doing most of the driving.
I believe that is a Bill of Attainder, and Constitutionally Prohibited, but I'm no lawyer.
watch your border, maybe you need a man for a govenor
What kind of sick **** could eat a hot dog and watch someone die?
I believe that is a Bill of Attainder, and Constitutionally Prohibited, but I'm no lawyer.
No, it's not. A Bill of Attainder would apply punichsment without benefit of trial. A Bill of Attainder would be singling out a person or group for direct punishment by fiat of law. No trial. You could argue that the Japanese internment camps were Bills of Attainder if laws were simply passed ordering the confinement of Japanese Americans. I think a simple rule is if the Trial of Fact only needed to establish your identity to prove guilt, it is a bill of attainder law.
See http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
We need something. Janet is worse than imagineable.
OK. Thanks!
a cheap haircut at Central and Camelback by AJ'S?
I lived in the Coronado District
Absolutely. Otherwise there are no rights, only mob rule.
Short answer: Generally, yes, individual rights trump mob rule.
Long Answer: Individual rights are subject to common law restrictions. You cannot yell fire in the crowded movie house. You cannot bear arms on my property if I decide not to allow it. You cannot require others to endure an unreasonable risk of injury or death in order for you to excercise a right. NBC weapons are "arms", but if you keep them in your basement, you are creating an unreasonable risk to everyone else and your "right to keep and bear arms" is trumped by this.
Nope, not in a free republic with a right to bear arms & weapons, -- and to possess any other type of property. - See the 14th.
Would you really want Timothy McVeigh to be able to drive his U-Haul of fertilizer bomb material into your neighborhood?
Farmers, miners, road builders, gasoline & propane dealers, chemical suppliers, -- the list is endless, -- all drive trucks full of dangerous materials on our thoroughfares every day.
Face up to a fact of life, - anyone with the desire can be a 'mad bomber'.
Until he detonated it, he was simply driving a U-Haul with a "prohibited weapon."
Exactly the point. How can a free society inspect every truck for "bomb materials"? Sure, we can have unenforceable 'laws', but to what real purpose?
It does not help the cause by arguing that individuals have an unlimited right to put others in an unreasonable amount of danger.
Nor does it help the cause of liberty to argue that we can 'license' every aspect of life, and prohibit possession of every dangerous type of object or material.
It's a common law principle that has been around since Magna Carter.
The prohibition 'principle' is a very closely restricted governmental power under our constitution. -- Prohibiting booze required an amendment, soon repealed, as it obviously infringed upon many other rights, and led to scofflaw disorders.
Attempting to enact prohibitions our RKBA's is an even bigger disaster in the making.
The 'justice dept' is playing with fire with such uncalled-for infringements on our liberties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.